Why Is the Pentagon Sending Grenade Launchers to College Campuses?

At least 117 colleges have acquired
surplus military equipment
from the Department of Defense,
according to a recent article in The Chronicle of Higher
Education
.

The surplus military gear was made available under a program
known as the 1033 program, which shot to public attention following
the recent events in Ferguson, Missouri.

Campus police departments have used the program to obtain
military equipment as mundane as men’s trousers (Yale University)
and as serious as a mine-resistant, ambush-protected vehicle (Ohio
State University).

Modified grenade launchers were also acquired, by University of
Central Florida, and Hinds Community College, whilst at least 60
institutions used the program to obtain M-16 assault rifles.

Trousers and office supplies aside, why do campus police
departments require military equipment designed to withstand
roadside bombs in Iraq and Afghanistan?

Among those contacted by the Chronicle was Michael
Qualls, an associate professor of criminal justice at Fort Valley
State University, Georgia. In Qualls’ view, there is no reason for
campus police departments not to gain access to military
equipment:

“If we continue on with the 1033 program, as those items become
obsolete at the military level and if they become available, why
not get ’em?” Mr. Qualls said. “It’s better to be prepared than not
prepared.”

However, one thing that the events of Ferguson showed was that
once police departments possess military equipment, they are
increasingly likely to use it. The improper use of such equipment
can further exacerbate tensions with law enforcement, and is
potentially disastrous.

America has already seen the disastrous consequences that can
occur when a militarized force clashes with students.  In 1970
it resulted in the death of four young college students, in what
became known as the Kent State massacre.

This senseless loss of life was recently used as
inspiration for a sweatshirt design
, in what was probably a
publicity stunt by Urban Outfitters. Regardless of your view of the
garment, it’s a reminder of what is at stake when it comes to
police militarization.

from Hit & Run http://ift.tt/1DjX0C5
via IFTTT

New Ad Campaign Urges Cannabis Consumers to Learn From Maureen Dowd’s Marijuana Mistake

A new new public
awareness campaign
in Colorado, aimed at encouraging
responsible use of marijuana edibles, features a billboard that
alludes to New York Times columnist Maureen Dowd’s

famously unpleasant encounter
with cannabis-infused
chocolate:

Mason Tvert, communications director at the Marijuana Policy
Project, which is sponsoring the ad campaign, explains:

For decades, efforts to educate people about marijuana have been
led by government agencies and organizations that want to maintain
marijuana prohibition. Their campaigns have been characterized by
fear mongering, misinformation, and derision, and they have not
made anyone safer. Like most Americans, Ms. Dowd has probably seen
countless silly anti-marijuana ads on TV, but she never saw one
that highlights the need to “start low and go slow” when consuming
marijuana edibles.

Now that marijuana is a legal product like alcohol in some
states—and on its way to becoming legal in others— it needs to be
treated that way. That’s where the Consume Responsibly campaign
comes in.

MPP highlights how far we’ve come in “A
Brief History of Marijuana Education in America
.”

I
discussed
the special hazards posed by cannabis-infused foods
in a column last July. Short version: Edibles are indeed tricky,
but consumers are not as helpless as Dowd portrays them.

from Hit & Run http://ift.tt/1soo2zQ
via IFTTT

New Ad Campaign Urges Cannabis Consumers to Learn From Maureen Dowd's Marijuana Mistake

A new new public
awareness campaign
in Colorado, aimed at encouraging
responsible use of marijuana edibles, features a billboard that
alludes to New York Times columnist Maureen Dowd’s

famously unpleasant encounter
with cannabis-infused
chocolate:

Mason Tvert, communications director at the Marijuana Policy
Project, which is sponsoring the ad campaign, explains:

For decades, efforts to educate people about marijuana have been
led by government agencies and organizations that want to maintain
marijuana prohibition. Their campaigns have been characterized by
fear mongering, misinformation, and derision, and they have not
made anyone safer. Like most Americans, Ms. Dowd has probably seen
countless silly anti-marijuana ads on TV, but she never saw one
that highlights the need to “start low and go slow” when consuming
marijuana edibles.

Now that marijuana is a legal product like alcohol in some
states—and on its way to becoming legal in others— it needs to be
treated that way. That’s where the Consume Responsibly campaign
comes in.

MPP highlights how far we’ve come in “A
Brief History of Marijuana Education in America
.”

I
discussed
the special hazards posed by cannabis-infused foods
in a column last July. Short version: Edibles are indeed tricky,
but consumers are not as helpless as Dowd portrays them.

from Hit & Run http://ift.tt/1soo2zQ
via IFTTT

Why King Coal Will Keep Its Crown

Submitted by Andrew Topf via OilPrice.com,

For climate change activists and those hoping for an energy future dominated by renewables or even less-polluting natural gas, the death of coal cannot come quickly enough. But with coal still the dominant form of cheap electricity throughout the world, it is unlikely the bogeyman of climate change will disappear anytime soon.

That's because the price of coal, compared to other fuels, is just too good to refuse. Just look at China, where the country's double-digit economic growth has largely been fueled by coal, which fulfills 60 percent of its energy mix.

According to a chart showing the levelized cost of energy — the price at which electricity must be generated from a source to break even — coal is the second-cheapest form of energy behind hydropower, at $40 per megawatt hour.

Compare that to the cost of nuclear at $60, natural gas at $70, and solar — which at $280 per MWH, is seven times the cost of coal. Coal is also plentiful, relatively easy to extract — though admittedly dangerous if mined underground — and requires minimal processing. And it can be used for power generation (thermal coal) or steelmaking (metallurgical coal).

Of course, coal-fired plants have exacted an enormous price on air quality, and the Chinese government – which has declared war on pollution — recently banned the use of coal in smog-cloaked Beijing. Last week, it was announced that for the first time in over a decade, Chinese coal imports and coal consumption both dropped.

While that may seem like a dart in coal's balloon, coal's continued use elsewhere is more than making up for China’s restraint.

Germany doesn't like to talk about it, but the world leader in the use of renewable energy, particularly solar, is also a big consumer of coal. As The Economist recently pointed out, Germany's production of power from lignite coal is now at 162 billion kilowatts, the highest level since the smokestack-belching days of East Germany.

The same article notes that Japan, which has no natural energy resources of its own and is scrambling to meet electricity demand — most of its nuclear reactors have been offline since the 2011 Fukushima disaster — approved a new energy plan in April that includes coal as a long-term electricity source. The Japanese have also invested almost $20 billion in overseas coal projects in the past seven years, according to the Natural Resources Defense Council.

In the United States, even though a shale-gas supply boom has seen many utilities shift to cheaper natural gas, the country will still be generating a third of its energy from coal by 2040 (only 10 percent less than now), according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA). That’s despite a concerted effort by the Obama administration to force the nation's coal-burning power plants to reduce their carbon emissions by a third over the next 15 years.

U.S. coal producers have responded to the trend of falling domestic consumption by exporting more coal overseas. A Wall Street Journal chart shows exports of U.S. coal grew from around 50 million metric tons in 2000 to 106.7 million MT in 2013. Most U.S. coal is destined for Europe, with Brazil, South Korea and China close behind.

All of this is not to suggest that coal producers haven't had their problems. The price of benchmark thermal coal over the past three years has dropped from more than $130 a ton to around $80. Metallurgical coal is also at a six-year low.

Despite a huge cutback in production, the coal market continues to be oversupplied. As Oilprice.com pointed out recently, waning steel demand in China has forced mines in Australia to close. Australian producers are also threatened by Chinese plans to build more rail capacity for its domestic coal, which would undermine its coal imports.

In the United States, coal producers are finding it increasingly difficult to lock utilities into long-term contracts that provide stability and protection from price fluctuations. That's because the utilities want the flexibility to have short-term contracts, or even buy coal on the spot market, since natural gas continues to be a competitive option.

Looking ahead, though, there doesn't appear to be a declining demand curve for coal. Consider this: in Africa, some 60 percent of the continent's population, or more than 600 million people, do not have access to electricity. The EIA predicts African coal consumption will rise by 70 percent by 2040. In India, another big consumer of coal, 300 million people remain disconnected to the electricity grid. The country plans to increase its use of renewable energy by 15 percent by 2020, but still faces the challenge of energy demand exceeding supply by 10 percent.

Coal is a likely contender to fill that gap. A recent article in Australian Mining states that by 2025, India's electricity generation from coal will be reduced from 60 percent to “only 50 percent of installed generation – but that doesn't necessarily mean less coal generation.”

In the end, it all comes down to price and government policies. If the economics of coal can be beaten by other electricity sources, the old-school fuel will face pressure, as it already has in the U.S. But as market forces continue to drive the various options available for utilities, coal use — particularly in developing nations — is almost certain to go up. Unless governments enact American-style laws to sharply curtail coal power plant emissions, expect King Coal to retain its crown.

 




via Zero Hedge http://ift.tt/1meynBD Tyler Durden

What The “Porsche Indicator” Tells Us About The Greek “Recovery”

As the “Big Mac Index” is to global purchase price parity levels of inflation, so when it comes to the state of the “recovery” if not for everyone, then certainly for the 0.1%, there is no better metric than the “Porsche Indicator.” Recall: “Porsche Reports Record Sales in 2013; 21 Percent Increase Over 2012” which certainly didn’t come on the back of yet another year of declines in real incomes for the middle class (spoiler alert: it came on the back of some $10 trillion in liquidty injections by the world’s central banks).

Yet one place where the “Porsche” recovery forgot to make landfall, is none other than the biggest casualty of Europe’s artificial monetary, political and wealth-transferring union: insolvent Greece.

The chart below, from the Greek department of transportation, hardly needs an explanation or commentary, suffice to say that far better than any revised, annualized, seasonally-adjusted non-GAAP GDP it captures the true state of the Greek “recovery”…




via Zero Hedge http://ift.tt/1s6Gin3 Tyler Durden

What The "Porsche Indicator" Tells Us About The Greek "Recovery"

As the “Big Mac Index” is to global purchase price parity levels of inflation, so when it comes to the state of the “recovery” if not for everyone, then certainly for the 0.1%, there is no better metric than the “Porsche Indicator.” Recall: “Porsche Reports Record Sales in 2013; 21 Percent Increase Over 2012” which certainly didn’t come on the back of yet another year of declines in real incomes for the middle class (spoiler alert: it came on the back of some $10 trillion in liquidty injections by the world’s central banks).

Yet one place where the “Porsche” recovery forgot to make landfall, is none other than the biggest casualty of Europe’s artificial monetary, political and wealth-transferring union: insolvent Greece.

The chart below, from the Greek department of transportation, hardly needs an explanation or commentary, suffice to say that far better than any revised, annualized, seasonally-adjusted non-GAAP GDP it captures the true state of the Greek “recovery”…




via Zero Hedge http://ift.tt/1s6Gin3 Tyler Durden

Kid With Laser Pointer Suspended Under Weapons Policy, Because Lasers = Guns

LasersReason readers know that students can get in
trouble for bringing guns to school (even accidentally). They can
also get in trouble for
writing clearly fictional stories
that mention guns. They can
also get in trouble for
folding paper airplanes
and
chewing Pop-Tarts
in such a way that the airplanes or delicious
pastries resemble a gun. “Lookalike” weapons are banned along with
actual weapons in most school districts.

Laser pointers also count as “lookalike” weapons, according to a
Westville, Indiana, school that suspended a 13-year-old boy for
allegedly waving one in the school parking lot. According to

The NWI Times
:

As it turned out, the 13-year-old boy was in possession of a
laser pointer, which police view as dangerous even if it’s not
shaped like a firearm.

“They are very dangerous in and of themselves, but anytime you
have anything that looks like a firearm it’s obviously a danger and
would be considered a credible threat,”  said LaPorte County
police Capt. Mike Kellems.

Very dangerous? Really? As far as I can tell,
no
one has ever been killed by a laser
. They might be annoying,
and you’re not supposed to aim them at planes, but there’s no way
they are “obviously” dangerous or a “credible threat.”

The way the kid was caught is also telling. According the news
story, no one actually saw him with what was definitely a laser.
Rather, a nosy parent saw him holding “something she believed was a
gun.” She went to the authorities—of course—and police searched the
kid’s locker, finding nothing. Then the cops asked the boy’s
mother, and she offered his laser pointer as a possible
explanation. The naive mother probably thought that would get him
off the hook.

The police didn’t charge the kid with a crime, though he was
suspended for a full week. As far as “lookalike weapon” incidents
go, that’s actually a fairly light punishment.

from Hit & Run http://ift.tt/1soepRK
via IFTTT

Texas Wants to Execute Man Who Killed Home Intruder Who Turned Out to Be SWAT Member

Marvin Louis GuyAttempting to serve a search warrant by
entering a house through a window
got Killeen, Texas, Police
Detective Charles Dinwiddie shot in the face and killed last May.
 It was yet another SWAT raid organized for a purpose other
than the reason they were invented. The police had a search warrant
looking for narcotics at the home of Marvin Louis Guy, 49. They
decided to serve this warrant at 5:30 in the morning and without
knocking on his door. He opened fire on them, killing Dinwiddie and
injuring three others.

Though they found a glass pipe, a grinder, and a pistol, they
did not find any drugs. Former Reason Editor Radley Balko
took note
of the deadly raid in May at The Washington
Post
. A police informant apparently told them there were bags
of cocaine inside the house, which sounds a lot like
another familiar drug raid
in Virginia that got an officer
killed.

The Virginia case ended with Ryan Frederick in prison for 10
years despite his insistence he thought he was defending himself
against in home intruders. He may end up lucky compared to Guy.
Prosecutors in Texas are going to seek the death penalty against
him. KWTX offers a dreadfully written
summary
that says next to nothing about the circumstances of
the raid but gives Dinwiddie’s whole life story. Guy faces three
additional charges of attempted capital murder for shooting the
other officers. The story mentions the no-knock raid but fails to
explain why it happened or the failure to find any drugs.

A search for Guy in the
jail inmate locator
for Bell County, Texas, shows that he is
being charged only for the shootings. There are no drug-related
charges listed. He is being held on a bond totaling $4.5
million.

from Hit & Run http://ift.tt/1DjKcf2
via IFTTT

U.S. Air Force Violates Constitution by Requiring Enlistees to Swear “So Help Me God.”

Air Force OathIn a
letter
to the Secretary of the Air Force the secular humanist
group the Center for Inquiry (CFI) cites the case of an atheist
airman who was, allegedly, denied reenlistment because he refused
to utter “So help me God” when affirming his oath to defend the
Constitution. If that is the case, he stands on solid ground since
the Constitution in
Article 6
specifically states:

The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the
members of the several state legislatures, and all executive and
judicial officers, both of the United States and of the several
states, shall be bound by oath or affirmation, to support this
Constitution; but no religious test shall ever be
required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the
United States.

The oath is
specified by 10 U.S. Code Section 502:

(a) Enlistment Oath Each person enlisting in
an armed force shall take the following oath:

“I, XXXXXXXXXX, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will
support and defend the Constitution of the United States against
all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and
allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the
President of the United States and the orders of the officers
appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of
Military Justice. So help me God.”

Apparently, up until last October the Air Force had permitted
its members to omit the phrase “So help me God” from its oath. The
CFI acknowledges that the 10 U.S. Code Section 502 does not appear
to make any part of the oath optional, but notes that the U.S. Army
regulations
state:

A commissioned officer of any Service will administer the Oath
of Enlistment in DD Form 4 orally, in English, to each applicant.
Make a suitable arrangement to ensure that the oath is administered
in a dignified manner and in proper surroundings. Display the U.S.
flag prominently near the officer giving the oath. The words “So
help me God” may be omitted for persons who desire to affirm rather
than to swear to the oath.

The Army clearly and correctly recognizes the primacy of the
U.S. Constitution over statutory law. It is notable that the 1789
enlistment oath that remained in effect until 1962 eschewed any
mention of a deity. The Army website tracing the history of the
1789 oath reports:

It came in two parts, the first of which read: “I, A.B., do
solemnly swear or affirm (as the case may be) that I will support
the constitution of the United States.” The second part read: “I,
A.B., do solemnly swear or affirm (as the case may be) to bear true
allegiance to the United States of America, and to serve them
honestly and faithfully, against all their enemies or opposers
whatsoever, and to observe and obey the orders of the President of
the United States of America, and the orders of the officers
appointed over me.”

Let’s go back to that. If the Air Force is requiring its
enlistees to swear to God, it is violating the Constitution that
its members swear or affirm to defend.

from Hit & Run http://ift.tt/1qfSri4
via IFTTT

U.S. Air Force Violates Constitution by Requiring Enlistees to Swear "So Help Me God."

Air Force OathIn a
letter
to the Secretary of the Air Force the secular humanist
group the Center for Inquiry (CFI) cites the case of an atheist
airman who was, allegedly, denied reenlistment because he refused
to utter “So help me God” when affirming his oath to defend the
Constitution. If that is the case, he stands on solid ground since
the Constitution in
Article 6
specifically states:

The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the
members of the several state legislatures, and all executive and
judicial officers, both of the United States and of the several
states, shall be bound by oath or affirmation, to support this
Constitution; but no religious test shall ever be
required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the
United States.

The oath is
specified by 10 U.S. Code Section 502:

(a) Enlistment Oath Each person enlisting in
an armed force shall take the following oath:

“I, XXXXXXXXXX, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will
support and defend the Constitution of the United States against
all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and
allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the
President of the United States and the orders of the officers
appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of
Military Justice. So help me God.”

Apparently, up until last October the Air Force had permitted
its members to omit the phrase “So help me God” from its oath. The
CFI acknowledges that the 10 U.S. Code Section 502 does not appear
to make any part of the oath optional, but notes that the U.S. Army
regulations
state:

A commissioned officer of any Service will administer the Oath
of Enlistment in DD Form 4 orally, in English, to each applicant.
Make a suitable arrangement to ensure that the oath is administered
in a dignified manner and in proper surroundings. Display the U.S.
flag prominently near the officer giving the oath. The words “So
help me God” may be omitted for persons who desire to affirm rather
than to swear to the oath.

The Army clearly and correctly recognizes the primacy of the
U.S. Constitution over statutory law. It is notable that the 1789
enlistment oath that remained in effect until 1962 eschewed any
mention of a deity. The Army website tracing the history of the
1789 oath reports:

It came in two parts, the first of which read: “I, A.B., do
solemnly swear or affirm (as the case may be) that I will support
the constitution of the United States.” The second part read: “I,
A.B., do solemnly swear or affirm (as the case may be) to bear true
allegiance to the United States of America, and to serve them
honestly and faithfully, against all their enemies or opposers
whatsoever, and to observe and obey the orders of the President of
the United States of America, and the orders of the officers
appointed over me.”

Let’s go back to that. If the Air Force is requiring its
enlistees to swear to God, it is violating the Constitution that
its members swear or affirm to defend.

from Hit & Run http://ift.tt/1qfSri4
via IFTTT